NEWS

WIRES

OTHER

Maoists' Hands Are Stained With Blood Of The Innocent

By John Lama  

It was a great mistake for Prime Minister Girija Koirala to take Maoists' words at their face value. Their commitment to peaceful transition and competitive parliamentary democracy is nothing more than a macabre ostentation. They were desperately in need of some stranglehold. Amidst burgeoning odds, the Maoist leadership was fervently looking for some subterfuge. Girija Koirala's attempt at accommodating the Maoists could turn out to be a devastating nightmare for democratic forces.

The agitation against the royal regression was motivated by a host of factors. Most important, a burning vengeance against King Gyanendra inspired Koirala, the leader of the seven party democratic alliance, to go to any extent. Gyanendra's manipulative obduracy to prevent Koirala from stepping into the shoes of Deuba, Chand and Thapa pricked him the most. Instinctively a narcissist, Koirala was nastily narked at being ignored by the monarch.

Collusion with the Maoist terrorists against the institution of monarchy was a gambling for the octogenarian leader of Nepali Congress. Without doubt, it was not only against the spirit of BP Koirala's principle of national reconciliation. Verily, it represented a callous stabbing behind what BP Koirala, the founder of Nepali Congress, stood for throughout his life. The moment Girija joined forces with the Maoist terrorist outfit, Nepali Congress lost its identity as what its leaders tend to boast of being a savior of democracy and human rights.

Nepalese monarchy was bound to be destroyed under the weight of King Gyanendra's hubris. Gyanendra who is widely suspected of being the mastermind behind the royal massacre of 1 June 2001, woefully failed to fathom "people's power". He was convinced that people would not support political parties for what they did during the 12 years of multi-party democratic dispensation. They twisted democracy beyond recognition. They made a mockery of the rule of law. They embezzled national exchequer. So-called democratic leaders, who were respected for their valiant role in the 1990 movement, had reduced themselves to grotesque scoundrels and squalid buffoons. Moreover, they unleashed a sordid legacy based on the bizarre travesty of rule of law.

Gyanendra himself did not do anything for the Nepalese, either. Worse still, during his visits to different parts of the kingdom, he tried to sell false promises and fantastic dreams to millions of Nepalese who were deprived even of basic necessities of life. Virtually he did nothing to redress their economic grievances. Nor did he embark upon any creative solution in order to protect them from Maoists' barbarism and savagery. Instead, his military lieutenants were accused of having been involved in the supply of arms to terrorists. His ambition to emerge as an active monarch was equally taken as a direct challenge to the fundamentals of democracy. And the Nepalese were not prepared to tolerate this decadence even at the cost of their own lives.

The resentment of the Nepalese reached its climax last April. People's power prevailed. The king had no choice but to relent. However in the process, several forces including Maoists, tried to define people's victory in their own narrow terms. By using the sheer power of intimidation, terror and murder that they were unleashing for the last several years, Maoists continued to prevail over the seven party democratic alliance. Democratic forces were swayed in such a way that even the newly-restored House of Representatives began to function as a puppet in the hands of Maoists. It seemed as if the terrorist outfit had cast black magic over them.

Democratic alliance led by the Nepali Congress lost both reason as well as the sense of direction. It seemed as if it were suffering from amnesia. The major objective of the April movement was declared to be the restoration of democracy. But in the aftermath of the movement their declared mission disappeared into oblivion and the Maoists' goal - establishment of a democratic republic as a strategic prelude to subsequent communist totalitarianism - came into the forefront. Those struggling for multi-party parliamentary democracy started dancing to the tune of nihilist Maoists whose sole objective is to reduce the entire kingdom to a contemptuous communist nightmare.

Equally abhorrent is the uncanny obsequiousness of Nepalese intelligentsia. Without even a modicum of resistance they seem to have submitted themselves to Maoists' coercion and eccentricity. It appears as if they were subconsciously trying to avenge the royal authoritarianism by being subservient to unscrupulous Maoist diktat. A majority of them feel comfortable in playing second fiddle to the Maoist leadership that is squarely responsible for the gruesome death of more than 15,000 Nepalese and the wanton destruction of physical infrastructure.

So far, Maoists appear to have notched up something substantial. But I don't see any reason why protagonists of democracy and rule of law should be exhilarated. Democracy and Maoism are mutually exclusive. They cannot coexist. Sugar-coated pronouncements of the Maoist leadership - including their commitment to democracy, human rights, independent judiciary, free media, competitive politics and peaceful transition - should not be allowed to camouflage their endemic proclivity towards intimidation, terror, abduction, violence and extortion. The hands of Nepalese Maoists are stained with the blood of the innocent. Peace and harmony do not exude therefrom. Nepalese society ought to treat them accordingly.

The so-called settlement reached between the seven party democratic alliance and the Maoists needs to be viewed against the above perspective. US ambassador to Nepal James F. Moriarty sounds prescient when he observes that Maoists cannot be trusted unless the spirit of the settlement is reflected in their future deeds. (11/09/06)

(* Mr. Lama can be reached at johnlama29@hotmail.com)

alan@newsblaze.com